The word “hysteria” commonly refers to irrational feelings or behavior, whether directed toward some specific stimulus or free-floating hysteria toward multiple possible stimuli. Hysteria is often associated with romantic love or sexual arousal, as in the classic Elvis song “All Shook Up.” However, I think we should recognize that since Western culture traditionally condemns open expressions of romantic love or sexual arousal, the commonly observed hysterical quality of love and sex may be an artifact of our culture, or political propaganda to promote a certain agenda.
When Elvis was starting out in the 1950s his “wild music,” scandalous lyrics, and defiance of traditional decorum were accused of being responsible for the rebellion of young people. Early rock and roll was even called “devil music.” However, it's possible that the hysterical or drunken quality sometimes observed in romantic love or sex may actually be an artifact of our restrictive religious background.
When our closest relatives (chimps and bonobos) are observed in their natural environment, sex is actually quite calm and casual, but when those same species are observed under artificial conditions in zoos or at structured feeding sites in the wild, there is considerably more aggression observed. Considering that multiple surveys indicate most Americans today are sexually dysfunctional, it seems plausible that the commonly observed hysterical quality of romantic love and sex are due to the artificial, restrictive conditions that culture imposes on our natural sexual instinct. At least that is more or less what Prof. Alfred Kinsey concluded after his research that sparked the modern sexual revolution in 1948 (1).
The meanings and differences between the emotionally charged words “love” and “sex” have received little detailed attention, even though they are essential elements in law, ethics, and culture. The following considers how these words are commonly defined, and why closer attention to distinctions may contribute to understanding government attempts to regulate people's behavior and interaction. The anti-sexual revolution that began around 1980 (2), might have been no mere accident of history.
The word “love” is commonly defined as a strong, positive feeling or emotion, or as an absolute superlative of “like.” In some languages like Russian you can only love another person, either romantically (a partner) or non-romantically (a family member). In other languages like Italian there is a different word for romantic love as opposed to non-romantic love. But English-speaking people commonly say they love just about anything: person, object or hobby, with the implication that only unrelated adult humans can be loved romantically. Love may be expressed in different ways, but in essence love is a feeling and not a form of expression. We also say “making love” to mean sexual intercourse, which is a kind of poetic license rather than a way to manufacture the emotion.
The word “affection” is sometimes used as a synonym for love as a noun or adjective, but not as a verb. We may express love through forms of affectionate behavior, especially physical hugs, kisses, and tender caresses. Physical affection is important for children or anyone else who has limited fluency in a language. A small child will hug a parent, sibling or playmate tightly long before words like “love” are understood. Even after language acquisition, physical affection may reinforce or support verbal avowals of love, since the skin is an organ of perception that senses temperature, texture and possibly other parameters of mood, while kids soon learn that talk is cheap.
The words “sex” and “sexual” are commonly used to refer to anything involving the sexual organs, including fantasy, arousal, excitement, and pleasure. However, if a person is sexually functional, then some expressions of arousal (e.g. genital erection) may be spontaneous, involuntary, or reflexive. Healthy people experience genital erections when riding in a vehicle or during sleep, as well as due to direct stimulation (visual or tactile) or erotic fantasy, even though unrelated to love.
Like many people I deny that the female breasts are “sexual organs,” since they play no part in sexual reproduction. The breasts merely provide nourishment to the newborn after sexual reproduction, although there have been cultural attempts to sexualize the breasts by hiding them, propping them up to look young, prohibiting contact even by older children, etc.
Anti-sex education is characterized by hysteria, with the classic sense of urgency of witch hunts that imply the survival of civilization depends on keeping children ignorant of the subject. Anti-sex hysteria is also cultivated by financial profiteers and political opportunists. In general, one way to win any argument, or at least stop open discussion, is to scream.
The anti-sex hysteria we are witnessing today is a repetition of the “white slave” panic of Victorian times (3), which bible-thumping feminists exploited to raise the age of consent and eventually marginalize sex workers as destructive agents of immorality, when in reality sex work is actually a natural consequence of an overly restrictive monogamous culture.
References
- Kinsey, Alfred. Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. Reprinted by Indiana University Press, 1998.
- Roiphe, Katie. Last Night in Paradise: Sex and Morals at Century's End. Vintage, 1997.
- Pearson, Michael. Age of Consent: Victorian Prostitution and its Enemies. David and Charles, 1972.